Research Article | Open Access

Translation and Validation of Personal Growth Initiative Scale-II for Pakistani Adults

    Sadia Zaman

    SWPS University of Social Sciences & Humanities, Aleksandra Ostrowskiego, Poland

    Irum Naqvi

    National Institute of Psychology, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan

09 Jan, 2019
06 Nov, 2019
31 Dec, 2020

Personal growth initiative is a person's active and intentional involvement in changing and developing as a person. Personal Growth Initiative Scale-II (PGIS-II; Robitschek et al., 2012) provides evidence of multidimensionality of construct of personal growth. Present research was accomplished in three phases with aim to translate and validate PGIS-II in Urdu. Phase 1 addressed the translation of measure through forward-backward translation method. To establish the cross-language validity, translated and the English version was administered on bilingual university students (N = 100). Reliability of both versions was determined by computing test-retest technique with 15 days interval. Phase-2 was aimed to establish the construct validity by carrying out. Exploratory Factor Analysis on adult women (N = 300) with age range of 21 to 52 years. Results showed four factors namely, Planfulness, Readiness for Change, Intentional Behavior, and Using Resources are reflection of personal growth initiative. Phase-3 of the research was aimed to confirm the factorial validity on sample of women (N = 300) with age range from 19 to 50 years. Findings confirmed four factor solutions and suggested that PGIS-II Urdu version can be utilized as a valid and reliable measure for the assessment of personal growth initiative among adults in Pakistan.

Personal growth or personal development provides the opportunity to turn out to be more pleased and even more achieved person. Personal growth is the level of independence as well as joy one can possibly experience in his/her life. About a half century before, Maslow (1945) stated that human being’s enthusiasm will be based upon the search of pleasure which results in individual progress. Self-actualized people are those that have been content along and exhibit full potential and capability of optimal functioning. As he said that person is ‘becoming’ and never always static in terms of attaining growth and acquiring fulfillment rather in reality it is natural instinct of person to grow and develop, therefore, individuals with positive approach towards life are always in ambitions to attain and achieve growth.

Robitschek (1999, 1998) coined the term personal growth initiative (PGI) and started out submitting on this topic, that has now evolved a new abundant and also ever-growing system of literature. Robitschek stresses that this construct is characterized as a deliberate inclusion in changing and creating as an individual. It gives intellectual segments, such as concentrating on the most proficient method to move and furthermore confiding in which change might be conceivable; adding behavioral segments, such as having the specific activity to really endorse the specific change strategy. PGI’s genuine deciding property is the self-change technique that is really purposeful and this deliberate and willful action to change makes growth more directional and responsibility oriented.

According to Robitschek et al. (2012), PGI is certainly an acquired aptitude for self-change over presence areas. They shared that PGI is comprised of four segments which work altogether, rather than sequentially, to improve self-awareness. A procured aptitude situated for self-change crosswise over life spaces claim in PGI for this readiness for change, which incorporates the aims that individual is potentially able to adjust and adapt with environmental changes. Planfulness is the capacity to be key and sorted out in change toward oneself endeavors while effectively starting for individual advancement and development. Planfulness in any aspect of life, especially with respect to PGI reminds about the mental state that individual is not only ready for required change, rather he or she has some mental frame of work that how to perform the task or bring about the change in current scenario. This is a step ahead to readiness, where more vigilance and specific frame of work is required to determine the growth. Person’s capacity to recognize and access assets outer to self, for example, other individuals and materials is asset use. Purposeful conduct implies genuine, and planned take after through, or doing of progress toward oneself arrangements and practices for the purpose of self-awareness initiativeness. This last component is the essence that it addresses actual, and purposeful self-change behaviors for the sake of personal growth initiativeness.

While viewing the theoretical belongings of personal growth initiative concept, Robitschek at al. (2012) and Rogers (1989) stated that actualizing tendency is personal growth, inherent growth tendency as personal fulfillment and growth is described as personal growth (Deci and Ryan, 2008, 2000). Their acknowledgment has one common attribution that personal growth is something innate or without any conscious chase and effort, without any purposeful or deliberate action. Whereas, Robitschek’s (1999) point of differentiation from these theories is only the mechanisms of personal growth initiative, which work under complete subjective awareness and efforts and individuals are completely willing with their own intention to bring about improvement or change. That is why it is known as personal growth “initiative”, as an individual he/she is taking initiative to counteract according to needs in the surroundings.

On the literary works, PGI seems to be an important construct to play a significant part for many constructive outcomes and being multidimensional. Personal Growth Initiative Scale – II (PGIS – II) is a self-report inventory validated thoroughly for assessing personal growth initiativeness. To assess personal growth initiative tendencies worldwide, bulk of literature has been produced (Bartley & Robitschek, 2000; Borja & Callahan, 2009; Callahan et al., 2013; Kashubeck-West & Meyer, 2008; Lasun & Odufowokan, 2012; Neff et al., 2007; Ogunyemi & Mabekoje, 2007; Robitschek & Keyes, 2009; Ryff & Keyes, 1995; Sharma & Rani, 2013; Weigold & Robitschek, 2011; Weigold et al., 2014). This scale has been used on Pakistani population as well (Ayub & Iqbal, 2012; Liaquat & Rafique, 2013; Malik et al., 2015; Sultan, 2011; Zaman & Naqvi, 2018).

These studies were representative of English language comprehending sample, where PGIS-II was utilised with population of educated and bilingual samples and their reliability estimates were found satisfactory. However, the need to indigenize scale in Urdu language for exploring conceptual equivalence on the novelty about initiative for personal growth as a scientific in Pakistani culture was still there.

Despite of being comprehendible, PGIS – II has been translated in many languages to determine the factor structure and universality of personal growth in other spheres of world. It has been translated in Indian (Bhattacharya & Mehrotra, 2014); Japanese (Tokuyoshi & Iwasaki, 2014); Chinese (Yang & Chang, 2014); Brazilian (Freitas et al., 2018); Turkish (Yalcin & Malkoc, 2013) languages and used for samples varied from North and South American, European, Asian, and African population. Researchers suggest that PGIS-II is universally existing trait with similar factor structure and should be further explored in other languages to testify the construct validity of the concept (Robitschek et al., 2012). Given this assumption as foundation, attempt to translate PGIS-II in Urdu for Pakistani population has been up taken as a key feature of present study for its better understanding and indigenous existence through validating its factor structure.


Objectives formulated for this research were to:
1. Translate Personal Growth Initiative Scale – II (PGIS-II)
2. Establish cross language validation, test-retest reliability, Chronbach’s alpha reliability and examine Pearson Product Moment Correlation coefficient of PGIS-II - Urdu version
3. Establish exploratory factorial validity and confirmatory factorial validity of PGIS-II - Urdu version


Permission to use PGIS – II and translate it from English to Urdu language was acquired by the author Robitschek, to increase utility of the inventory in Pakistan. Completion of this study relied upon three phases that is translate, adapt, and validate across languages; then exploratory factor analysis and examining psychometric properties through chronbach alpha reliabilities and Pearson Product Moment correlation; and finally confirmatory factor analysis to see model fineness of the construct in Urdu Version of PGIS – II.

Personal Growth Initiative Scale – II (PGIS – II). Personal growth initiative is being measured by Personal Growth Initiative Scale – II (PGIS – II) developed by Robitschek et al., (2012). PGIS – II is revision of PGIS – I. Earlier it was considered as one-dimensional construct, later on studies and research work elaborated it as a multi-dimensional construct. Scale has 16 items on the whole and all are positively worded with internal consistency up to .87. On 6-point Likert-type response this scale measures agreeability level from 5 being strongly agreed to 0 being strongly disagreed, thus is having score range from 0 to 80. PGIS-II has following four subscales: Readiness for Change comprises of items 2, 8, 11, and 16 (score range 0 to 20); Planfulness includes items 1, 3, 5, 10, and 13 (score range 0 to 25); Using Resources includes items 6, 12, and 14 (score range 0 to 15); and The Intentional Behaviour includes items 4, 7, 9 and 15 (score range 0 to 20).

Phase 1: Translation and Cross - Language Validation of Personal Growth Initiative Scale – II (PGIS – II)
A well-established method to achieve conceptually equivalent translation, forward and back-translations (Brislin, 1976, 1970; Van de Vijver & Hambleton, 1996) method was used. For this purpose five bilinguals were provided with original scales to translate them in Urdu by following guidelines of Groves and Engel (2007). Best translations were selected through committee approach and this translation into Urdu version was given to another set of five independent bilingual translators for translating them back into English. Most closely related items with original version were selected after back translation. To examine the cross language validity of this translated instrument with reference to original English version, sample of young adults were selected, details are given below:

Sample. Hundred university students having bilingual comprehension skills from a public and private sector university (each 50 students) were participants of this study.

Fig. 1: Diagrammatic representation of the distribution of total sample into four groups for test-rest reliability

Figure 1 is elaborating details about sample division and provision of original and/or translated scale to participants. They were requested to fill PGIS – II with assurity to maintain their anonymity, and keeping ethical consideration in mind. Two-week, gap between test and then re-test administration was made to control learning effect and previous experiential impact.

Procedure. Four groups of sample were made and in Trail-1 two groups having 25 students each were requested to respond on English version original scale. Remaining two groups were instructed and requested to respond to Urdu PGIS – II that is translated version. Similarly other two groups of 50 students were given translated version of PGIS-II. After two weeks, these students were again approached for Trail-2. Here first group of 25 students (earlier got English version) this time were given Urdu version and other 25 students were again provided with same English version of scale. Likewise, to last two groups, first group was provided with English scale and second group got translated version as depicted in Figure 1 as well. To identify any discrepancy and to examine equivalency in both versions or with-in same version application, this exercise was particularized.

Results. Correlation coefficients between all four groups were configured in Trial 1 and 2 for original and translated versions of PGIS – II (see Table 1).

Table 1:
Test-Retest Reliabilities of Urdu and English Versions of
Personal Growth Initiative Scale (PGIS-II) and Its
Subscales (N=100)

Note. UU=Urdu-Urdu; UE=Urdu-English; EU = English-Urdu; EE = English-English
**p < .01

Table 1 reflects test-retest correlations of all four groups on overall scale and its subscales. These were found positive and significant. According to Robitschek et al., (2012) the test re-test reliability estimates for original PGIS – IIs after two weeks’ interval on the sample of 62 individuals are given above in which Cronbach alphas’ was .92 for overall scale indicating PGIS – II stability over the period of time. For present study, correlation coefficients mentioned in table 1 are suggesting stability of scale and subscales in different groups (p < .01). A glance upon between-groups correlation value, Urdu-Urdu retest group is higher as compared to other three groups possibly because of practice effects due to repeated administration of a scale in native language that is Urdu.

Phase 2: Exploratory Factorial Structure and Reliability of Urdu Version of PGIS-II Scale
Sample and procedure. Sample of 300 adult women age range 21 to 52 years (M = 30.29, SD = 5.86) were taken as participants for this phase of the study via approaching them on their work and/or education places and domestic settings. Individual and group administrations were made through purposive-convenient sampling technique. Ethical considerations and permissions were taken into account and then respondents were guided and assisted when needed with request to read and respond with care and honesty and do not overlook any item.

Results. The results of Phase 2 comprised the following details:

Exploratory Factor Analysis for Urdu Version of PGIS-II. Factorial structure of PGIS-II was examined with help of exploratory factor analysts (EFA) technique on the parameters of scale development, already given by the author of PGIS-II (Robitschek et al., 2012). Worthington and Whittaker (2006) guided to apply EFA, and determine factors on Scree, Eigen and interpretability. On the basis of theoretical support Maximum Likelihood method of rotation was executed to see consolidation of factors of translated version to verify factorial extraction of Urdu-version on Pakistani population.

Values of Bartlett’s test of Spehricity X2 (df = 120) 7190.482, (p = .000) and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure (KMO) of sampling adequacy .92 (criteria range 0 to 1 being low to high) suggested that sample is well distributed and sample-size is adequate for particular analysis. These findings lead to decision of applying EFA on 16 items of PGIS-II by using Maximum Likelihood method.

Table 2 depicts results of EFA where factor structure and PGIS – II’s validity through oblique rotations’ maximum likelihood method revealed inter-relation among items within factors. This quad-factorial solution was found to be suitable as well as reflective of original version. Communalities of items were found more than .70. Moreover, it indicated that total variance explained by four factors is 89.43. All 16 items were retained in four factors along with their representativeness as per original items residence in four subscales. Original PGIS – II EFA findings were based on maximum likelihood estimation, Oblique Rotation with factor loadings from .50 to .94 and emergence of 4 factors on a sample of 164 individuals with 54.26% total variance (Robitschek et al., 2012), suggests that our findings provide stable structure and loadings as well.

Table 2:
Factor Loadings for Personal Growth Initiative Scale – II
Through Maximum Likelihood by Using Oblique Rotation
Method (N = 300)

Note. h2 = Communalities

Eigen value is large enough to represent a meaningful factor (Field, 2009) and to plot graph of each Eigen value (y-axis) against the factor with which it is associated (x-axis) is known as a Scree plot (Cattell, 1966).

Fig. 2: Scree plot showing extraction of factors of PGIS-II Urdu

Figure 2 represents scree plot for factor matrix of 16 items of PGIS-II through maximum likelihood method. In this image upon both axis’s, variance in terms of eigen value and its factor condensation is represented, where it is obvious that four factors presents sufficient weightage before point of inflexion.

Psychometric properties of PGIS-II Urdu version. In order to psychometric properties of PGIS-II Urdu version correlation coefficients were calculated for each subscale.

Table 3:
Means, Standard Deviations, Cronbach Alpha and Correlation
Between Subscales And Personal Growth Initiative Scale
(PGIS – II) Urdu Version (N = 300)

**p < .01

Results in Table 3 show correlations of PGIS-II subscales. Results suggest strong and significant positive correlations among all subscales along with good alpha reliabilities.

Phase 3: Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Urdu version of Personal Growth Initiative Scale – II
In this phase already translated scale in Urdu that is Personal Growth Initiative Scale–II was analyzed for confirmatory factor analysis. Convergent-discriminant validity with-in a scale across its factors is being identified and predicted through confirmatory factor analysis (Distefano & Hess, 2005; Distefano et al., 2009).

Sample and procedure. A sample of 300 adult women with age ranges from 19 to 50 (M = 30.57, SD = 5.67) from different organizations, educational institutions, and domestic settings were approached through convenient sampling technique. Required instructions and assistance was provided to participants. In the end, they were thanked for their participation with assurity to maintain the confidentiality and anonymity of the information they shared.

Results. Descriptive analysis to examine Mean, standard deviations, alpha coefficients, skewness, and kurtosis for data spread and normality and found within desired ranges endorsing justification to run CFA upon this data. It was observed that skewness range (.30) for scale was fairly in between range of + 3.29 (Field, 2009). Cronbach alpha was .96, with M = 40.36; SD = 18.71 (score range Actual: 4-80, and Potential: 4-80) on 16 items of Personal Growth Initiative Scale –II translated in Urdu in Phase-I of present research. Based on this Scale was considered reliable for further use.

Confirmatory Factorial Analysis of Personal Growth Initiative Scale - II Urdu Version
AMOS – 23 (Arbuckle, 2014) was utilized as tool to run and examine factor structure and overall model of PGIS – II translated version scale. Standardized factor loadings were taken upon similar criterion of EFA that is equal to and above than .40 suggested by Robitschek et al. (2012).

Table 4:
Factor loadings (Standardized Regression weights) for Four Factors
of Personal Growth Initiative Scale – II Urdu Version (N = 300)

Table 4 is depicting the items’ standardized regression weights well above mentioned criteria by Brown (2006) and Hu and Bentler (1999) as all four factors have .72 loading weightage on overall scale.

Table 5:
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Personal Growth Initiative
Scale Urdu Version (Indices of Model Fit) (N = 300)

Note. CFI = Comparative Fit Index; NFI = Non-Normed Fit Index; TL1 = Tucker Lewis Index;
RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation

Table 5 has two models’ results if CFA with different model fit indices. In Model 1 or known as first order CFA, 16 items revealed χ2 (df = 98) 324.681 with p < .001 rejecting null hypothesis at there. Furthermore, CFI = .97, NFI = 96, TLI = .97, RMSEA = .08 as model fitness indices reflected an almost acceptable model fit for the data. However, for testing the composite integrity of this scale, model of second order CFA was tested providing acceptable figures of χ2 (df = 107) 369.633 at p < .001, CMIN/df = 3.45, CFI = .97, NFI = .96, TLI = .97 and RMSEA = .09. These fit indices justified the factorial validity of PGIS as one construct having four different and interlinked dimensions sufficient to be used to assess personal growth initiative among women. (Barrett, 2007; Bentler, 2007; Hair et al., 2010; Jackson et al., 2009; MacCallum & Austin, 2000; Marsh et al., 2004; McDonald & Ho, 2002; Medsker, Williams, & Holahan, 1994; Thompson, 2004).

Fig. 3: Measurement model of Personal Growth Initiative scale urdu version with four subscales (16 items)

Figure 3 represents the graphical picture of good fit model. All four factors and items showed the factor loadings > .40 without adding any error covariance providing evidence of a good fit measurement model.


Recent trends in positive psychological and intervention measures suggests the development of a variety of assessments designed to index constructs that are closely related to personal skills and/or might be considered essentials tool-kit for successfully dealing with variety of risk factors (Liaquat & Rafique, 2013; Malik et al., 2015; Robitschek & Keyes, 2009; Weigold & Robitschek, 2011; Zaman & Naqvi, 2018).

One widely used measure regarding aspect of personal capacitation skills assessment is Personal Growth Initiative Scale – II (Robitschek et al., 2012). This assessment tool is designed to measure individual capacity of preparedness for change, with resources utilization, and intentionality both cognitively and behaviorally. There are number of studies (e.g., Borja & Callahan, 2009; Callahan et al., 2013; Kashubeck-West & Meyer, 2008; Lasun & Odufowokan, 2012; Neff et al., 2007; Robitschek & Keyes, 2009; Sharma & Rani, 2013; Villacieros et al., 2014; Weigold & Robitschek, 2011; Yakunina et al., 2013) emphasizing that PGIS-II is very useful in studying individual’s skills to seek personal growth across the globe. Terms and connotations in assessment tools are however, difficult to comprehend because of language constrains (Malik et al., 2015; Zaman & Naqvi, 2018).

Translation of the instrument and its indigenous language adaptation for this study is undertaken by forward-back translation method and then acquiring the most representative translations through committee approach. Then test-retest reliability being very important mode to identity potential of the scale across time was also examined in this study on independent sample. Stability on reliabilities on PGIS-II Urdu version indicated the scale in Urdu language showed better comprehension among Pakistani population.

Exploratory factor analysis with maximum Likelihood oblique rotation method upon independent set of sample of 300 adult women as executed for determining structure of this translated version on local sample. All 16 items fitting in four distinct yet positively correlated factors were retained just like clustered in original version having trustfulness on original scale’s structure indexing the strength of original measure.

Previous results confirmed that all factors/subscales are positively related as found in this study, inter-scale and subscale correlations in Urdu version of PGIS – II (Bhattacharya & Mehrotra, 2014; Robitschek et al., 2012; Tokuyoshi & Iwasaki, 2014; Yalcin & Malkoc, 2013; Yang & Chang, 2014; Zaman & Naqvi, 2018). Psychometric properties that is Cronbach alpha for all scales and subscales have been found in ideal range of reliability (Field, 2009). Personal Growth Initiative Scale – II (PGIS – II; Robitschek et al., 2012) have been found as very reliable measure from previous literature (Callahan et al., 2013; Lasun & Odufowokan, 2012; Villacieros et al., 2014; Weigold & Robitschek, 2011; Weigold et al., 2014; Zaman & Naqvi, 2018) with strong alpha coefficient, similar results were reproduced on Urdu-version of PGIS-II as well, and endorsing validity of indigenous version.

Confirmatory analysis of factors was performed on PGIS – II to see its model strength based on four subscales. CFA is connected to its brilliant practice rules accessible for advancement and approval of any instrument. It is applied in present study because of its excellent practice guidelines available for development and validation of any instrument (Byrne, 2010; Kline, 2005; Thompson, 2004). Having inferred different model fit indices and estimates, there comes need to assess demonstrated fit by researcher for respective model. Previous studies accompanying different fit measures have a tendency to perform well as for distinguishing model misspecification and absence of reliance on test estimate or sample in-adequacy (Fan, Thompson, & Wang, 1999; Hu & Bentler, 1998, 1999; Jackson, 2007; Marsh, Balla, & Hau, 1996; Marsh et al., 2004; Marsh, Hau, Balla, & Grayson, 1998).

On these statistics, the results of confirmatory analysis model fit indices for PGIS – II original English version for 16 items in first-order Model-1 where suggesting the acceptable model fit (Robitschek et al., 2012; Satorra & Bentler, 1994). Similar parameters were considered at guideline for present study confirmatory factor analysis. Model fit index for Personal Growth Initiative Scale (PGIS) Urdu Version Model 1 indicated the first order CFA for 16 items yield an almost acceptable model fit for the data. However, for testing the composite integrity of PGIS scale, model of second order CFA was tested providing acceptable figures (e.g., Marsh et al., 2004; Yuan, 2005). Sixteen items standardized regression weights or factor loadings for PGIS – II Urdu version were chosen upon criterion of equal to and greater than .40 consistent with existing literature (Robitschek et al., 2012). Error covariance is another aspect frequently practiced but rarely addressed. Error covariance are basically illustrating that particular items or sub-factors have similar point of view for participants while scoring, thus this provides a justification for employing them in measures assessing construct of psychology which are overlapping usually. However, research work employing these error covariance is not properly reported and justified with reference to their theoretical background.

Parsimonious and plausible covariance’s have been liberated by researcher with it minimalistic use (MacCallum, 1995). Fortunately, in present case instead of improving model by employing error-covariance, model of PGIS was retained on its acceptable values. Personal growth initiative was although not adapted as per Pakistani population’s needs in previous studies.


An important limitation for this study was that sample collection focus was on adults who are educated and are resident of urban areas of Islamabad and Rawalpindi as a result illiterate and rural population has been unnoticed limiting research scope and applicability of findings to particular group’s understanding and existence of personal growth initiative.


Present study as contributing in domain of positive psychology by indigenizing this concept in local context elaborates that personal growth initiative as an infant construct and so far only explored in the West with very promising findings stirred to examine it within our own sociocultural dynamics. It resulted in providing facts that it is universally existing feature and Pakistani population does have its familiarity and they does report it on a quantifiable measure leading to rectification of language barrier because of Personal Growth Initiative Scale translation and validation in Urdu.


Translation and cross language validity of PGIS – II from English to Urdu language has been customized and provided with satisfactory values. Quad-Factor structure for 16 itemed PGIS – II was tested through exploratory factor analysis for indigenous population. Evidencing the confirmatory factorial validity of Personal Growth Initiative Scale –II Urdu version, it was found suitable and convincing to employ for further studies in need of assessing personal growth initiative construct in Urdu based on satisfactory findings provided by this research.


  1. Arbuckle, J. L. (2014). Amos (Version 23.0) [Computer Program]. Chicago: IBM SPSS.
  2. Ayub, N., & Iqbal, S. (2012). The relationship between personal growth initiative, psychological wellbeing, and psychological distress among adolescents. Journal of Teaching and Education, 6(1), 101-107.
  3. Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modeling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 815-824.
  4. Bartley, D. F., & Robitschek, C. (2000). Career exploration: A multivariate analysis of predictors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56(1), 63-81.
  5. Bentler, P. M. (2007). On tests and indices for evaluating structural models. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 825-829.
  6. Bhattacharya, A., & Mehrotra, S. (2014). Personal Growth Initiative Scale: How does it perform in Indian youth samples? Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 40(1), 122-129.
  7. Borja, S. E., & Callahan, J. L. (2009). The trauma outcome process assessment model: A structural equation model examination of adjustment. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 18(5), 532-552.
  8. Brislin, R. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185-216.
  9. Brislin, R. W. (1976). Translation: Application and research. New York: Gardner Press Inc.
  10. Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford.
  11. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with Amos: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York: Routledge.
  12. Callahan, J. L., Borja, S. E., Herbert, G. L., Maxwell, K., & Ruggero, C. J. (2013). Test of the trauma outcome process assessment model: One model of individual and environmental factors to explain adjustment. Traumatology, 19(4), 268-279.
  13. Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioural Research, 1, 245.
  14. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-being: An introduction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 1-11.
  15. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘what’ and the ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self–determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
  16. DiStefano, C. (2002). Effects of ordered categorical data with confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 327-346.
  17. DiStefano, C., & Hess, B. (2005). Using confirmatory factor analysis for construct validation: An empirical review. Journal of Psycho-educational Assessment, 23, 225-241.
  18. DiStefano, C., Zhu, M., & Mindrila, D. (2009). Understanding and using factor scores: Considerations for the applied researcher. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 14(20), 1-11.
  19. Fan, X., Thompson, B., & Wang, L. (1999). The effects of sample size, estimation methods, and model specification on SEM fit indices. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 56-83.
  20. Field, A. P. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
  21. Freitas, C. P. P., Damásio, B. F., Kamei, H. H., Tobo, P. R., Koller, S. H., & Robitschek, C. (2018). Personal Growth Initiative Scale – II: Adaptation and psychometric properties of the Brazilian Version. Paidéia (Ribeirã oPreto), 28, e2806.
  22. Groves, J., & Engel, R. (2007). The German adaptation and standardization of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI). Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 49-56.
  23. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.
  24. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to under-parameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424-453.
  25. Hu, L.T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
  26. Jackson, D. L. (2007). The effect of the number of observations per parameter in misspecified confirmatory factor analytic models. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 48-76.
  27. Jackson D. L., Gillaspy J. A., & Purc–Stephenson. R. (2009). Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: An overview and some recommendations. Psychological Methods, 14(1), 6-23.
  28. Kashubeck–West, S., & Meyer, J. (2008). The well–being of women who are late deafened. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 55(4), 463-472.
  29. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford.
  30. Lasun, G., & Odufowokan, B. A. (2012). Transformational effects of upgrading Nigerian colleges of education to universities in the globalization era: A perspective of staff psychological well–being. Advances in Management and Applied Economics, 2(1), 185-204.
  31. Liaquat, F., & Rafique, R. (2013). Parenting styles, personal growth initiative and perceived social barriers in career decision making. [Abstract]. Punjab University Psychological Abstracts, 22.
  32. MacCallum, R. C. (1995). Model specification: Procedures, strategies, and related issues. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
  33. MacCallum, R. C., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological research. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 201-226.
  34. Malik, N. I., Yasin, G., & Shahzadi, H. (2015). Personal growth initiative and self–esteem as predictors of academic achievement among students of technical training institutes. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, 35(2), 703-714.
  35. Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & Hau, K. T. (1996). An evaluation of incremental fit indices: A clarification of mathematical and empirical properties. In G. A. Marcoulides, & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques. Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
  36. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis–testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320-341.
  37. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., Balla, J. R., & Grayson, D. (1998). Is more ever too much? The number of indicators per factor in confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioural Research, 33, 181-220.
  38. Maslow, A. H. (1945). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper.
  39. McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M. H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7, 64-82.
  40. Medsker, G. J., Williams, L. J., & Holahan, P. J. (1994). A review of current practices for evaluating causal models in organizational behavior and human resources management research. Journal of Management, 20, 439-464.
  41. Neff, K. D., Rude, S. S., & Kirkpatrick, K. L. (2007). An examination of self–compassion in relation to positive psychological functioning and personality traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(4), 908-916.
  42. Ogunyemi, A. O., & Mabekoje, S. O. (2007). Self-efficacy, risk-taking behavior and mental health as predictors of personal growth initiative among university undergraduates. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 5(2), 349-362.
  43. Robitschek, C. (1998). Personal growth initiative: The construct and its measure. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 30(4), 183-198.
  44. Robitschek, C. (1999). Further validation of the Personal Growth Initiative Scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counselling and Development, 31, 197-210.
  45. Robitschek, C., & Kashubeck, S. (1999). A structured model of family functioning and psychological health: The mediating effects of hardiness and personal growth orientation. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 46, 159-172.
  46. Robitschek, C., & Keyes, C. L. M. (2009). Keyes’s model of mental health with personal growth initiative as a parsimonious predictor. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(2), 321-329.
  47. Robitschek, C., Ashton, M. W., Spering, C. C., Geiger, N., Byers, D., Schotts, G. C., & Thoen, M. (2012). Development and psychometric properties of the Personal Growth Initiative Scale-II. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 59, 274-287.
  48. Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. l. M. (1995). The structure of psychological wellbeing revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719-727.
  49. Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In Alexander von Eye and Clifford C. Clogg (Eds.), Latent variables analysis: Applications to developmental research (pp. 399-419). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
  50. Sharma, S. K., & Rani, R. (2013). Relationship of personal growth initiative with self-efficacy among university postgraduate students. Journal of Education and Practice, 4(16), 125-135.
  51. Sultan, S. (2011). Stigmatization: Addressing self-esteem and personal growth in patients with psychological and physiological illness. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, 31(1), 29-36.
  52. Thoen, M. A., & Robitschek, C. (2013). Intentional growth training: Developing an intervention to increase personal growth initiative. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 5(2), 149-170.
  53. Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington: American Psychological Association.
  54. Tokuyoshi, Y., & Iwasaki, S. (2014). Development and psychometric evaluation of a Japanese version of the Personal Growth Initiative Scale-II. Shinrigaku Kenkyu. The Japanese Journal of Psychology, 85(2), 178-187.
  55. Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Hambleton, P. M. (1996).Translating tests: Some practical guidelines. European Psychologist, 1(2), 89-99.
  56. Villacieros, M., Serrano, I., Bermejo, J. C., Magaña, M., & Carabias, R. (2014). Social support and psychological well-being as possible predictors of complicated grief in a cross–section of people in mourning. Ana–les de Psicología (Annals of Psychology), 30(3), 944-951.
  57. Weigold, I. K., & Robitschek, C. (2011). Agentic personality characteristics and coping: Their relation to trait anxiety in college students. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 81(2), 255-264.
  58. Weigold, I. K., Weigold, A., Russell, E. J., & Drakeford, N. M. (2014). Examination of the psychometric properties of the Personal Growth Initiative Scale–II in African American college students. Assessment, 21(6), 754.
  59. Whittaker, A. E., & Robitschek, C. (2001). Multidimensional family functioning: Predicting personal growth initiative. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 48(4), 420-427.
  60. Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counselling Psychologist, 34, 806-838.
  61. Yakunina, E. S., Weigold, I. K., Weigold, A., Hercegovac, S., & Elsayed, N. (2013). International students’ personal and multicultural strengths: Reducing acculturative stress and promoting adjustment. Journal of Counseling and Development, 91(2), 216-223.
  62. Yalçın, İ., & Malkoç, A. (2013). Adaptation of Personal Growth Initiative Scale-II to Turkish and investigation of psychometric properties. The Journal of Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences, 26(3), 258-266.
  63. Yang, H., & Chang, E. C. (2014). Examining the structure, reliability, and validity of the Chinese Personal Growth Initiative Scale–II: Evidence for the importance of intentional self-change among Chinese. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96(5), 559-566.
  64. Yuan, K. H. (2005). Fit indices versus test statistics. Multivariate Behavioural Research, 40, 115-148.
  65. Zaman, S., & Naqvi, I. (2018). Role of personal growth initiative as a moderator between stress and mental health among adolescents. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 8(1), 123-147.

How to Cite this paper?

APA-7 Style
, S., Naqvi, I. (2020). Translation and Validation of Personal Growth Initiative Scale-II for Pakistani Adults. Pak. J. Psychol. Res, 35(4), 657-674.

ACS Style
, S.; Naqvi, I. Translation and Validation of Personal Growth Initiative Scale-II for Pakistani Adults. Pak. J. Psychol. Res 2020, 35, 657-674.

AMA Style
S, Naqvi I. Translation and Validation of Personal Growth Initiative Scale-II for Pakistani Adults. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research. 2020; 35(4): 657-674.

Chicago/Turabian Style
Sadia Zaman, and Irum Naqvi. 2020. "Translation and Validation of Personal Growth Initiative Scale-II for Pakistani Adults" Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research 35, no. 4: 657-674.